Problem is how do we determine something that is real or useful from something which is an internal conscious state, a hallucination, or a belief, or a feeling? — Tom Storm

I laid out all that rigmarole about my history in science and engineering to show I recognize the difficulties in knowing things. I understand the value of science. I understand the sources of uncertainty and doubt. I've dealt with those issues my whole working life on a practical level.

Beyond that, you're asking me to summarize a whole world view in bullet form in a thread not intended for that purpose.

I take your point, however much proof shows that the universe can't be infinite.

I don’t believe it is possible for something to come from nothing and so everything that exist now, has always existed in some form. — Present awareness

I agree and this fits with the big bang, as one main theory is that quantum fluctuations split no energy into equal ammounts of positive and negative energy, just like how 0=10+(-10).
Some of this energy then gets converted into mass (E=MC2).
Basically, you don't need to say it like nothing=somethimg, you could say nothing=nothing or something=something, it all means essentially the same thing.

Please, anyone correct me if I have got the science wrong here, I am by no means an expert.

I have always said that I believe in Evolution once the mechanism got going,. — Gary Enfield

To say that evolution acts only on animate matter implies evolution has an ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate matter. Is this what you are suggesting? If so, this makes no sense to me. It makes better sense to state evolution acts on emergence, and emergent properties - consistent with the science of complex systems, whilst self organization creates them.

You broadly asked for a mechanism that might create life. Theories of abiogenesis from the perspectives of biology, chemistry, geophysics, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology all agree that self organization led to life - along an evolutionary path. Again to impress on you that self organization, via evolution, led to life, I state that no living creature, including humanity, can perform an action that is outside the purpose of self organization!

Even God would have to be a self created / self organized god!

" there is only one known mechanism in the whole of existence - the living cell"

That is not so. A living cell is self organizing, but so is any random group of elements within a membrane. That they self organize is a mechanism - an omnipresent mechanism acting on everything in pockets of the universe that are not chaotic. So I think this is where you should start your enquiry.

A living cell may be a highly evolved version of a random group of elements within a cell - I'm not saying I can prove this, but this is one of the possibilities. If the right elements found themselves trapped in a cell and had to self organize, life may well emerge - in the right situation, at the right time.

The elements required are a self replicating molecule ( RNA ), and metabolism ( mitochondria and a membrane that allows nutrients in and entropy out ) . If such a combination of elements found themselves self organizing, from the word go they would be in competition with other similar configurations of elements, so evolution and natural selection would drive better ordered states. As I've previously mentioned there is no upper limit to self organization - it seems to be an open ended process that currently culminates in human consciousness. The process I'm describing is deterministic with a slight element of randomness.

It is difficult to see how this might occur from the materialist perspective of matter in motion. I have come to understand that the relationship of information and energy = matter. So, at the fundamental level, what is combining and recombining is information and energy. From this perspective there is an element of mind at play from the outset. The matter that results is an integration of energy and information, which is near enough to the modern definition of consciousness in IIT theory ( integrated information ). From this monistic ( panpsychic ) perspective the complexity we see at the cellular level is easier to accept, and may in time be possible to understand.

Okay so you are arguing from a position of ignorance, saying in essence "I don't know therefore nobody will ever know". — Olivier5

No - and any rational person would also know that my comments did not say or mean that.

It is perfectly valid to acknowledge that we have not yet reached the end of the investigation, and I have no problem in saying that a conclusion may be reached one day.

My point, which you obviously don't like, is that we use the evidence generated by science to eliminate certain theories of origin because the facts dispute them... and this is what is currently occurring with yours.

And what the frick frack does "a smattering" mean here? — T Clark

For those that lived through the misrepresentations of the materialist community 30 years ago, a 'smattering' was used by them to mean that we just needed all the Amino Acids to form spontaneously (nothing else) and evolution would take over to form everything else... which of course was rubbish on many levels - not least because Amino Acids do not form the whole structure of the key component in replication, (ie. the ribosome).

Here is a link to an article that uses the purported impossibility of life self-generating to support the young earth argument. The process described is similar to the one you describe in the OP.

http://members.toast.net/puritan/Articles/HowOldIsTheEarth_A.htm — T Clark

You leave me astonished that you provided this link, as you clearly haven't read it properly or understood it, because you still seem to believe that they are advocating a solution by chance?

Let me help you. They are, like other creationists, taking the piss out of materialists for suggesting that chance can account for the emergence of life - and having presented the stats in the article, they even say that such an idea is nonsense - proving that God is the only logical way to explain the origin of life..... their beliefs not mine. You really should pay more attention to the articles you quote.

A quibble - It is misleading use the word "evolutionary" in this context. It leads to confusion between two completely different processes - evolution and abiogenesis. The heart of our dispute seems to be that you are unwilling to acknowledge that. — T Clark

Don't try to taint me with your own failings. I understand the distinctions very well, and I also read things properly. If you had read the OP, you would know that I explained why Abiogenesis, for various reasons, needs to have a perfect replicating mechanism for complex molecules. It currently doesn't have one prior to the living cell. How many more times does it have to be said?

Hi Enrique

Thank you for your long and considered reply. Your description is, of course, quite close to the hopes of many scientists researching Abiogenesis, but it is based on a lot of assumptions, for which there is virtually zero evidence.

I will expand on that in a moment, but I would first like to say how much I appreciated your efforts in trying to establish the key factors we would need to overcome to make it work. I hope you will see my comments below in that light, because many of the terms you used appeared to describe things and mechanisms that were complex from the start.

The debate will only move forwards when we are able to articulate the core factors that are pivotal to any answer, and my instinct is that there might only be a small number of these - enough to get a process going in primordial conditions.

People are often nervous about speculating - but it is only through speculation and subsequent follow through, that we can hope to reveal what may truly be the key factors - so I hope you will re-post with a set of refined criteria - representing the factors that are essential to your vision.

The following headlines are some of the factors that people will throw at you when challenging any solution to the origin of life.. so I ask that you take them in good spirit.

There is no evidence for base chemicals working in the way you describe, anywhere - not in the lab and not in nature as far as we can tell....certainly not in any in hidden corners of our vast environment that have so far been investigated. Your hoped-for mechanisms do not seem to exist.

In the lab, as I understand things, a very simple molecule of no more than a few atoms, (not resembling Amino Acids at all), was able to replicate itself exactly for a very small number of times in perfect conditions (no more that 16 times before it failed). The failure was because the tiniest detail changed and so it no longer worked. Put another way, as soon as it mutated it was dead. So there is certainly no evolutionary mechanism.

Yet it is the only simple molecule that has shown any ability to replicate at all, though it is acknowledged that such a chemical would have no contribution to make to the debate, other than demonstrating a possibility for something more useful.

So there is not even a viable replicating mechanism, even in the lab, prior to the first cell. Without a replicating mechanism your theory is dead in the water.

Even if there was a viable mechanism, it can only replicate what exists and there is no theory on how the first complex molecules emerged in order to then be replicated - ie. in order for them to then find a working partner to provide the biological loops you refer to.

I am not trying to dismiss what you say, I am crudely trying to hone-in on the factors that would allow your theory to work - but I hope that I have illustrated the tip of the iceberg, and why may people seem skeptical of this approach, without being able to offer anything better.

I'm intrigued to see how you distill the essence of your argument.

I am not trying to dismiss what you say, I am crudely trying to hone-in on the factors that would allow your theory to work - but I hope that I have illustrated the tip of the iceberg, and why may people seem skeptical of this approach, without being able to offer anything better. — Gary Enfield

True, we have not generated what is obviously living from what is indisputably nonliving in the lab, but one would expect it difficult to extrapolate modern cells back to at least 550 million years ago, when the Cambrian explosion happened and macroscopic eukaryotes emerged. But the first signs of fossilized protocells are roughly four billion years old. Three and a half billion years of membranous evolution and colonization is like a zillion bazillion years on the human scale, and we have plenty of evidence that humans evolved from hominids in a few million years, so it seems that its only a matter of how, not if.

It has been documented that amoebas can form symbiotic relationships with bacteria they engulf after only a few weeks of laboratory exposure. Genetic testing proves that the nucleus is descended from archaea, mitochondria from bacteria, and chloroplasts from cyanobacteria, all containing at least remnant DNA. The cytoplasm is full of both DNA and RNA, though we haven't discerned much of its function to this point. Cells are a teeming genetic ecosystem more than a kind of machinery, undeniably having arisen from membranes combining, dividing and engulfing at their characteristic speedy pace to proceed from the chemically simple to the more complex.

How the first cell originated is a mystery and challenging to theorize because the environment must have transitioned from enough chaos to drive a complex metabolic cycle and towards a tamer environment conducive to diversely intricate cellular evolution. This sort of transformation would have been exceedingly rare, but almost inevitable on that timescale.

The best hypothesis I know of thus far is the deep sea hydrothermal vents which etch microscopic wormlike holes connecting larger nodes into surrounding rock while emitting large quantities of organic molecules and fueling a nutrient cycle in likeness to cellular metabolism, with hydrogen ion gradients and exposed metals for catalysis. The first cellular material would have been a film adhering internally to the rock. All this required were phospholipids, a fairly simple combo of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphate if I recall, bonded at near boiling temperatures and studded with sticky organic molecules, to get going. Single-tailed phospholipid membranes self-assemble into cells when full and are extremely porous, so would soon have become overflowing with all kinds of organic molecules. This is probably where primordial metabolism originated.

In a relatively rare event, some of these hydrothermal vents (or whatever the similar energy source was) must have become less agitative, perhaps from seismic activity or distribution by way of ocean currents, so that primordial cells with their primitive metabolism got established in much more favorable conditions. This is where protocells would have become a complex ecosystem, with increasing symbiosis until something like stromatolites formed as the first multicelled colonies.

I'm not a researcher of course, but based on what I've read that's my preliminary thinking!

Hi Gary,

I see that you prefer to view water as a chemical/catalyst enabler.I am more interested in the properties of the chemical element or any other element that had a principal or key role in forming life.
If you go that route, then we can go deeper and say that water and other chemical elements that formed life are made of molecules and atoms.
Each atoms is made by electrons, protons, neutrons etc ... as a conclusion the chemical elements are wave of energy.
Material in my opinion does not exist (is virtual).We call something material if we can touch, feel or see(or maybe matched by a physics formula), but that is not correct.All the five human senses are basically sensors of energy on specific wave length, and also those sensors are made of energy.
You can say the human/animal cells or plants cells are "radars" tuned to specific wave of energy lengths, that work simultaneous only for that specific energy lengths.
These sensors together formed animal or plant "consciousness", which develop in time with evolution after more info and data was gathered by those sensors.

Life cell was not a process that developed in one go, it needed time with a lot of data "pour into" ( evolution).Because of this is very hard, almost impossible to create a "living cell" from zero in a lab. As in one go you can create only a dead cell(with no data/information in it ).
Aliens or other non-earth creatures did not create and did not start the forming of " living cells", the universe and the evolution did it.


Some older posts in these forum of Wayfarer said living cells had consciousness at first, i kind of disagree with that.
Bacteria and viruses are practically wave of energy tuned to specific wave lengths, with no conscience.
They know only one or two things.
In the way bacteria works is like an electric current that can pass trough a wire.
If the wire is cut or it has some isolator in between, the current stops or dies .The similar is with the bacteria as well, if is in water or a good environment with chemical elements they work.
If the environment is broken they die.
The difference is the electric current works at a length of energy and the bacteria has other length(on some bacteria it can be two lengths of energy or more).

quantum fluctuations split no energy into equal ammounts of positive and negative energy — scientia de summis

One may not split zero into anything, because by it’s very definition, zero energy means that there is no energy there to split.

When you talk about quantum fluctuations, you are talking about “something” whereas I’m talking about “nothing”.

Hi Enrique

Thanks for responding so quickly. I'm glad that my other activities are not so intense at this moment - allowing me to respond quickly myself.

True, we have not generated what is obviously living from what is indisputably nonliving in the lab, but one would expect it difficult to extrapolate modern cells back to at least 550 million years ago, when the Cambrian explosion happened and macroscopic eukaryotes emerged. But the first signs of fossilized protocells are roughly four billion years old. — Enrique

The residues from what is believed to be the earliest cells (based on carbon residues and apatite in rock layers), do seem to date back between 4bn and 4.1bn years. (There are no fossils as such). If correct this means that the emergence of the first cell occurred between 100 and 200m years after rocks cooled to bearable temperatures.

Multi-Celled life based on Eukaryotes began just 800m years ago and since then, I agree that evolution seems to be the mechanism that has driven most of the diversity in life that we experience today.

By implication, it took 3,200m years between the time that the first cell emerged and the first multi-celled creature came to exist. However - all the steps in that evolutionary process were cells, and even the most basic original cell had to achieve the sophistication that we see in the most basic cells today, (whether you choose Archaea or Bacteria). In terms of chemical processes, and the formation of DNA-based replication - they were all fully formed and therefore highly complex mechanism/organisms.

It doesn't matter if you theorise about the nucleus or mitochondria coming as an absorption of other cells - those earlier cells still had to emerge and exist with full functionality from base chemicals.

The cytoplasm is full of both DNA and RNA, though we haven't discerned much of its function to this point. Cells are a teeming genetic ecosystem more than a kind of machinery, undeniably having arisen from membranes combining, dividing and engulfing at their characteristic speedy pace to proceed from the chemically simple to the more complex. — Enrique

There is a great deal of DNA whose function we do know, and none of it is computational. A great proportion seems to be unused historic versions of genes which were superceded through mutation.

We do know the different functions of all RNA (at least as it is currently used by cells), and it is generally used to transcribe sections of DNA in a different code, and also to label/tag Amino Acids so that they can be used in the replication process. A small number of specific RNA sequences are dedicated to Ribosomes with their unique functions... and which still have no apparent evolutionary path, (each of the 3 types of cell having their own unique form of ribosome).

None of these chemicals have a computational (computer-like capability) and yet the processes within a cell do contain molecules which appear to rationalise and exhibit traits that have the appearance of awareness - as discussed in other posts. I am sure that this will be a key factor if we can initially acknowledge what is happening. There may be subtle QM effects to explain it in future - but QM displays randomness rather than rationality - so to me that seems unlikely.


In relative terms, the 100m yr development from base chemicals of the first living cell seems remarkably quick, given the timeframes for evolution we considered a moment ago. To me, that suggests that a process must have been in operation - but what? To others it might be evidence for a God - although God does not wish to identify himself. So I am more inclined to explore more mundane possibilities.

If we go where the evidence takes us, something does seem to be providing molecules, and single celled creatures without a brain, with clear abilities well beyond their chemical make up.

If we can distinguish that factor, then we may have a basis for non-chemical influences on the early development of life.... both in terms of the emergence of RNA; proteins to copy; self-replication mechanisms; metabolism etc.

In a similar experiment to Stanley Miller's work on spontaneous emergence of Amino Acids, similar tests were done to see if any nucleotides emerged, (the basis of all RNA and DNA) - entirely without success. (In fairness one nucleobase did appear as I understand it, from one particular chemical mix - but that would not have been conducive to the other nucleobases... and none of the nucleotides.

Indeed, to this day, labs still use living cells to generate nucleotides and Amino Acids for experimentation, as the only technology that we have to synthesis them from base chemicals is : highly elaborate/sophisticated; highly inefficient and expensive; relatively new (within 10 years); and bears no relation to any process in the natural world. Add to that, the chicken and egg situation with protein development and you have a real set of problems.

However, looking for base factors to identify, I quite often perceive that there is an element of 'direction' that is required - eg. to push any evolutionary process in a consistent path towards the reality that we see. Yet we struggle to know what that factor could be.

Without this direction all of your processes could be expected to take one step forward and then one step back - and get nowhere other than through ridiculously obscure odds - which would mean that one occurrence could never realistically be expected to repeat itself.

Hi JoshS

When an experiment produces results, those results become a fact that has to be explained. Other than discovering error or fraud in the reporting of measurements etc., those facts become a permanent and unchanging record - and every relevant fact must therefore be accommodated within any explanation.

How we interpret facts is ever changing as new philosophical ideas emerge - but the facts themselves don't change and it is both misleading and dishonest to only incorporate some facts when presenting a theory. All theories are born out of philosophies that are then applied to facts.

An explanation of facts can lead us to a concept of what may be occurring and we can be so familiar with some theories that we can regard them as fact, when they aren't. As an example, the Big Bang : Big Crunch Theory had virtually been regarded as a fact by many people until it was discovered that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating. Now we see new theories emerging.

New evidence/facts can emerge that can change the emphasis of our interpretation, but the old facts don't go away, and must still be accommodated by any new theory.... however it should be equally true when we see evidence that is not disputed scientifically, (like the process of Homologous Recombination in DNA Repair), it should be acknowledged and not skated over for the purpose of maintaining an old materialist theory that may have had its day.

I say this because the scientific analysis of living processes constantly throws out issues which seem to break the mould of established theory. Until we are honest about that, we are likely to hold ourselves back.

Hi Pop

To say that evolution acts only on animate matter implies evolution has an ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate matter. Is this what you are suggesting? — Pop

I didn't say that - indeed I think that in various posts I said quite the opposite.
I said that evolution was only possible when the mechanism got going - and the only known mechanism ever, is the living cell.

I also made the point that Darwin and Dawkins both invoke survival and 'positive selection' as a means of accelerating and guiding evolution in a certain direction. Both would seem to require a degree of Thought or Awareness as part of the process... and to date, people have only associated those things with full living entities - whether individual cells or group of cells.

" there is only one known mechanism in the whole of existence - the living cell"

That is not so. A living cell is self organizing, but so is any random group of elements within a membrane. That they self organize is a mechanism - an omnipresent mechanism acting on everything in pockets of the universe that are not chaotic. So I think this is where you should start your enquiry. — Pop

Your quote misses the context of the earlier sentence. What I said in total was that the only known mechanism for evolution in the universe was the living cell.... and that is correct as far as I know.

I didn't say that they were the only things to self-organise - although your membrane example wasn't strong in my opinion.

Many membranes are either made of living cells, or they are pure chemicals/fats which have been generated by the cells. It is the cells that evolve not the membranes per-se.

A living cell may be a highly evolved version of a random group of elements within a cell - I'm not saying I can prove this, but this is one of the possibilities. If the right elements found themselves trapped in a cell and had to self organize, life may well emerge - in the right situation, at the right time. — Pop

I think you may need to re-phrase this as, at headline level, I can't see how a cell be something within a cell. Perhaps you meant that the elements finding themselves in a cell spontaneously self-organise?

Again, you need to provide specific examples because I know that many materialists will say that the chemical paths which undertake the tasks of metabolism and reproduction, conform to a fixed template and follow a sequence that is self-regulating because of the set structures in which they operate (whether membrane channels, or the structure of catalysts and other proteins which act on each other in fixed ways).

This avoids the question of how such structures came about (which is part of the emergence of life) yet you will know that in various posts made by me, I have given specific examples where molecules vary their actions in response to dynamic situations that would seem to break any static chemical make-up. The Laws of Physics and Chemistry say that they should only work one way - but they don't.

However, returning to your point, I am absolutely sure that no matter how long you left them, if you put all the elements that make up a living being in a container, they would probably never make a living entity.

Again - Stanley Miller tried this in the 1950s and just got 5 Amino Acids after decades of waiting, (the same 5 Amino Acids he had achieved within the first 2 weeks of his experiment). Later chemical analysis on the residues from his experiment showed the presence of a few more Amino Acids, but it was suspected that this might be down to contamination.

Other experiments that applied different, more reactive mixes, got more Amino Acids, but never a complete set necessary for life.

The point is, that I feel that chemistry has been shown to fold molecules and position their atoms in particular ways/places because of their sizes and energy levels. This seems to be what happens with crystals and a small number of molecules with a degree of complexity. We also know that gravity can pull material together and this can lead to the formation of new heavier atoms in stars.

However, when you talk about self-organisation, and even information-based activity in the natural world, you seem to be making bigger claims than just chemistry and energy levels, but I can only see your statements. I do not see the underlying examples and logic of what you mean by it. Responding to you without a specific context and examples is difficult, if not impossible.

Hi Adughep

I think that your post deviated from the initial theme of water quite a bit, and you diverted onto....

animal or plant "conscience" — Adughep

.... by which I think you meant consciousness.

You made a number of points that some people may find rather weird, but I think you touch on some interesting ideas.... if I try to put the gist of what you said into my language.

The nature of consciousness and awareness has not been established by science, and yet we know that they exist in creatures like ourselves - so they are not fantasy. I have also given several examples where single celled creatures without a brain, and individual molecules within cells, can seemingly exhibit properties of logic and awareness.

It may well be that the factor which enables any consciousness can be applied at any level of existence, but with different levels of sophistication.

If so, then your point about interacting energy waves might be one way to explain it. Over time, there would be no reason why the crudest mechanism of interacting energy waves might become more sophisticated and evolve in a separate manner over time. It is one of many possible theories. However you need specific examples to give substance to your ideas if they are to be taken seriously.

We enter the realms of high philosophy if we try to debate whether a conscious influence, (even a very mild one, that is driven by interacting energy waves), came before physical matter.

However, I don't see the point in such a debate unless you want to try to prove the existence of God within interacting energy waves.

I would suggest that all you would need to argue is that the two influences were interacting with each other.

When an experiment produces results, those results become a fact that has to be explained. Other than discovering error or fraud in the reporting of measurements etc., those facts become a permanent and unchanging record — Gary Enfield

How we interpret facts is ever changing as new philosophical ideas emerge - but the facts themselves don't change — Gary Enfield

the old facts don't go away, and must still be accommodated by any new theory. — Gary Enfield

Thanks to analytic philosophers like Quine , Sellers and Putnam, it is now commonly accepted within at least some quarters of philosophy of science that facts cannot be separated from values, that is, interpretive schemes that define what a fact is. So there no such thing as a fact in itself independent of a particular interpretation. Change the interpretation and you change the fact.

Hi JoshS

So there no such thing as a fact in itself independent of a particular interpretation. Change the interpretation and you change the fact. — Joshs

I'm sorry but I think that is just plain wrong.
If you have an experiment that (say) mixes two chemicals under certain precise conditions, and you then measure the outputs - identifying any new and residual molecules and their quantities, then the results of the experiment are facts that need no interpretation. They stand alone, because that's what happened.

If we then choose to put an interpretation on them, then fine. To that extent, we are agreed that interpretations do change quite regularly.

But if someone chooses to place a different interpretation on the same facts, the facts haven't changed.

This seems particularly true in the realm of QM where there are lots of recorded facts and a lot of very wild theories/interpretations to try to make sense of them. But it is also very true of the analysis of life - the subject of this thread. That is why I am keen to establish facts that we can all use to test 'the next explanation' and be clear about what a new theory has to satisfy.

Hi Present Awareness

quantum fluctuations split no energy into equal ammounts of positive and negative energy
— scientia de summis

One may not split zero into anything, because by it’s very definition, zero energy means that there is no energy there to split.

When you talk about quantum fluctuations, you are talking about “something” whereas I’m talking about “nothing”. — Present awareness

I think there is potentially a good debate here, because various famous names including Steven Hawking, have offered the 'splitting of nothingness into matter and anti-matter' as a way to have spontaneous creation, (seemingly out of nothing), but in a way that preserves the balance of mathematical equations. They do this because they struggle, like everyone else, with matter of origin.

What I don't see, is how this relates to the subject here. If you wish to pursue it, can you either explain how it is relevant here, or set-up a new discussion thread? Thanks.

Yes i was referring to "consciousness" .I edit my post to reflect this word.

I agree that i deviated from "water". I like water, but is only my opinion based on what i read.
Though your topic is about living cell and i did not want to talk only about water.
I think water it is a key or primordial element in forming life only because it can store data/information in it.
Water is also sensible to multiple waves of energy, this meaning it can interact with them(and store that energy waves interaction in it).A metal or a rock cant do that. Crystals have some high energy interaction properties, but is still not like water.

You made a number of points that some people may find rather weird, but I think you touch on some interesting ideas.... if I try to put the gist of what you said into my language. — Gary Enfield

If something of my ideas was not clear i will try to explain again and with examples from real world(when possible.)

The nature of consciousness and awareness has not been established by science, and yet we know that they exist in creatures like ourselves - so they are not fantasy. I have also given several examples where single celled creatures without a brain, and individual molecules within cells, can seemingly exhibit properties of logic and awareness.

It may well be that the factor which enables any consciousness can be applied at any level of existence, but with different levels of sophistication.

If so, then your point about interacting energy waves might be one way to explain it. Over time, there would be no reason why the crudest mechanism of interacting energy waves might become more sophisticated and evolve in a separate manner over time. It is one of many possible theories. However you need specific examples to give substance to your ideas if they are to be taken seriously. — Gary Enfield

I agree with you the above statement, so a big yes from my part :).
I know i need examples, for me is easy to understand that if chemical elements are made by molecules and atoms.
Atoms are made by electrons, protons and neutrons, which "in turn" are waves of energy.
So as a conclusion all we see and feel are waves of energy.

To be able to demonstrate with examples might be a little hard, for some complex things i need to do a lot of waves interactions.
I can give you a simplistic example of waves interactions that result in a object with different physical properties because of these wave interactions.
Ex. When Iron is found on earth using mining it has a type of physical properties.When you apply heat/fire to it or energy wave interactions, it transforms in "steel" with different physical properties.
The same work of process happened on "cells" or forming of "life cells" with higher "consciousness" using wave energy interactions.
Of course these energy interactions frequencies are much lower in living cells. then the ones that are required to made steel .But are still there and are required for evolution.

However, I don't see the point in such a debate unless you want to try to prove the existence of God within interacting energy waves. — Gary Enfield

I dont want to debate on existence of God, i am actually an atheist who believes only in what the universe provide.

I think the above is the main way how "life cells" formed using wave energy interactions when they reached the state of proteins or more complex cells.The wave interaction process is currently ongoing and exists in the present time.

Hi Tom Storm

Is there one robust documented example of anything spiritual existing? — Tom Storm

I think that part of the problem here is how you define 'spiritual'.
I find that most materialist label things as spiritual when examples fall outside the abilities of Matter/Energy, and they want to smear a person rather than answer the points being raised.

I believe that I have given examples. As I have pointed out several times, the actions of motor proteins when transporting cargo in containers (vessicles) from a place of manufacture in a cell to another place where they can be used in a cell, across an ever changing structure and road network, is one of the great mysteries. The control factor seems to defy explanation by chemical means and so the computing/logical ability has been labelled as spiritual by materialists wanting to avoid the issue.

I have given another example in the actions of a small number of enzymes repairing DNA in a process labelled Homologous Recombination. As there are again no chemical explanations for what we see, materialists have again tried to dismiss the evidence as wild notions of spirituality, instead of acknowledging the issue, and considering possibilities beyond Matter/Energy.

Adughep was brave enough to look for practical solutions to this. Would interacting energy waves represent spirituality in your book?

Hi Present Awareness

quantum fluctuations split no energy into equal ammounts of positive and negative energy
— scientia de summis

One may not split zero into anything, because by it’s very definition, zero energy means that there is no energy there to split.

When you talk about quantum fluctuations, you are talking about “something” whereas I’m talking about “nothing”.
— Present awareness

I think there is potentially a good debate here, because various famous names including Steven Hawking, have offered the 'splitting of nothingness into matter and anti-matter' as a way to have spontaneous creation, (seemingly out of nothing), but in a way that preserves the balance of mathematical equations. They do this because they struggle, like everyone else, with matter of origin.

What I don't see, is how this relates to the subject here. If you wish to pursue it, can you either explain how it is relevant here, or set-up a new discussion thread? Thanks. — Gary Enfield

The origin of the first cell and it’s evolution, assumes that there was such a thing as a first cell. If matter and life “always” existed somewhere in an infinite universe, there would not be a first cell, just as there is no first minute of time or last number in math, in which one more digit may not be added.

If everything in the universe has always existed, there is no need for creation, simply just a constant changing of forms. Prior to your current form, you were two separate cells living in two different bodies. Our birth is just an arbitrary date in which we left our mothers body, but our existence in one form or another has always been infinite.

By implication, it took 3,200m years between the time that the first cell emerged and the first multi-celled creature came to exist. However - all the steps in that evolutionary process were cells — Gary Enfield

I think this might be a flawed assumption. It is completely possible that the first carbon residues were not the protocells which gave rise to the Cambrian explosion. When considering timescales involved, it is completely valid to consider this as possibly more than three billion years.

I also think pinning ourselves to the concept of an amino acid or nucleotide is presumptuous. They wouldn't have evolved from a solution containing only their basic building blocks, but rather in many increments. You might want to consider the existence of a partial amino acid or nucleotide, and that some may have evolved prior to cells, in protocells, and then in the complete cell. All the evolution doesn't have to happen within a single medium, in one fell swoop, and considering the process to be essentially determined by holistic function is fallacy unless some evolutionary principles exist that have not been discovered. We lack a record of the missing molecular links, but it hasn't been disproven that they existed, we just haven't found comparable combinations so far.

As you mentioned in an earlier post, our thermodynamic model of the atom could be suspect, and a refined quantum physics might revise chemistry into something like more morphable energy flow instead of generated by fixed three dimensional structure, necessitating a major adjustment to our conception of how reactions happen and what the range of possibility is.

Scientists have quite easily synthesized single-tailed phospholipid membranes from their basic building blocks in the lab, which combine, form spheres and pinch in two spontaneously, so the basic template of cells has been proven to readily evolve, and probably emerged separately on numerous occasions.

I also think pinning ourselves to the concept of an amino acid or nucleotide is presumptuous. They wouldn't have evolved from a solution containing only their basic building blocks, but rather in many increments. You might want to consider the existence of a partial amino acid or nucleotide, and that some may have evolved prior to cells, in protocells, and then in the complete cell. All the evolution doesn't have to happen within a single medium, in one fell swoop, and considering the process to be essentially determined by holistic function is fallacy unless some evolutionary principles exist that have not been discovered. We lack a record of the missing molecular links, but it hasn't been disproven that they existed, we just haven't found comparable combinations so far. — Enrique

This possible mechanism for abiogenesis has been proposed to Gary Enfield many times in this thread. He has no good response. He just goes on saying that, since we don't understand all the principles of how abiogenesis through self-organization actually works, that's proof that it's impossible. You're just beating your head against a wall.

This possible mechanism for abiogenesis has been proposed to Gary Enfield many times in this thread. He has no good response. He just goes on saying that, since we don't understand all the principles of how abiogenesis through self-organization actually works, that's proof that it's impossible. You're just beating your head against a wall. — T Clark

I had a feeling you guys were going in circles at this point lol

if someone chooses to place a different interpretation on the same facts, the facts haven't changed. — Gary Enfield

Here’s an example from Nelson Goodman describing the relationship between our accounts of experience and the experience in itself:

“To be objective, the interpretationist points out, one would have to have some set of mind-independent objects to be designated by language or known by science. But can we find any such objects?

A point in space seems to be perfectly objective. But how are we to define the points of our everyday world? Points can be taken either as primitive elements, as intersecting lines, as certain triples of intersecting planes, or as certain classes of nesting volumes. These definitions are equally adequate, and yet they are incompatible: what a point is will vary with each form of description. For example, only in the first "version," to use Goodman's term, will a point be a primitive element. The objectivist, however, demands, "What are points really?" Goodman's response to this demand is worth quoting at length:

If the composition of points out of lines or of lines out of points is conventional rather than factual, points and lines themselves are no less so. ... If we say that our sample space is a combination of points, or of lines, or of regions, or a combination of combinations of points, or lines, or regions, or a combination of all these together, or is a single lump, then since none is identical with any of the rest, we are giving one among countless alternative conflicting descriptions of what the space is. And so we may regard the disagreements as not about the facts but as due to differences in the conventions-adopted in organizing or describing the space. What, then, is the neutral fact or thing described in these different terms? Neither the space (a) as an undivided whole nor (b) as a combination of everything involved in the several accounts; for (a) and (b) are but two among the various ways of organizing it. But what is it that is so organized? When we strip off as layers of convention all differences among ways of describing it, what is left? The onion is peeled down to its empty core.”

You're right, spiritual is not always a good match. Is there a better word? Supernatural? Even more loaded for some. It depends on the claim being made. Scientific anomalies or gaps in knowledge don't really count. We know there are are things that are not yet explained by science, but that doesn't mean we have a better approach for establishing facts about the world.

However, returning to your point, I am absolutely sure that no matter how long you left them, if you put all the elements that make up a living being in a container, they would probably never make a living entity. — Gary Enfield

One day soon, Sutherland says, someone will fill a container with a mix of primordial chemicals, keep it under the right conditions, and watch life emerge. “That experiment will be done.”

The one thing that is certain is that the contents of the container will self organize - either to an equilibrium state ( solid / steady state ) or in the case of life, a far from equilibrium state ( an evolving process ).

I said that evolution was only possible when the mechanism got going - and the only known mechanism ever, is the living cell. — Gary Enfield

The universe is evolving, and as a consequence so are all of its component parts, not just the living parts. Even a rock evolves from magma, to rock, to minerals dissolved by water, a solution of mineralized water gets zapped by Stanley Miller to form amino acids, and then a cell shows us how certain amino acids can be combined to form animate matter as cellular proteins. Eventually elements of the rock may evolve to become a neuron, and contribute to a comment in this thread. :smile:

To limit evolution to animate matter suggests a predisposition to a dualistic understanding where life is something separate to the rest of the universe, rather then a monistic understanding of how elements of the universe evolve to life.

In my understanding what comes to life is an element of the universe, not something separate to it. Specifically what comes to life is an ordered pocket of the universe. Life could not arise in chaotic pockets, therefore life is caused by orderly pockets where water is liquid. In such situations atoms can self organize to form molecules, molecules can self organize to form amino acids, amino acids can self organize to form cellular proteins, cellular proteins can self organize to form cells, cells can self organize to form organs, and organs can self organize to form bodies. At each of these layers the interrelational evolution of the micro elements gives rise to a synergistic macro element that is an emergent property. This is roughly the complexity theory perspective. In this understanding, life arises out of, and depends on the order external to the system.

The universe is evolving, and as a consequence so are all of its component parts, not just the living parts. Even a rock evolves from magma, to rock, to minerals dissolved by water, a solution of mineralized water gets zapped by Stanley Miller to form amino acids, and then a cell shows us how certain amino acids can be combined to form animate matter as cellular proteins. Eventually elements of the rock may evolve to become a neuron, and contribute to a comment in this thread. :smile:

To limit evolution to animate matter suggests a predisposition to a dualistic understanding where life is something separate to the rest of the universe, rather then a monistic understanding of how elements of the universe evolve to life.

In my understanding what comes to life is an element of the universe, not something separate to it. Specifically what comes to life is an ordered pocket of the universe. Life could not arise in chaotic pockets, therefore life is caused by orderly pockets where water is liquid. In such situations atoms can self organize to form molecules, molecules can self organize to form amino acids, amino acids can self organize to form cellular proteins, cellular proteins can self organize to form cells, cells can self organize to form organs, and organs can self organize to form bodies. At each of these layers the interrelational evolution of the micro elements gives rise to a synergistic macro element that is an emergent property. This is roughly the complexity theory perspective. In this understanding, life arises out of, and depends on the order external to the system. — Pop

Hello Pop,

I think almost the same as you, the element of life can be a rock or a metal.As we see now water looks like a good structure to form life cells.
Though in the universe might be elements more stronger and better then water in forming life.


But the process of forming the "life cell" was not ordered at all.In my opinion the process was made using a lot of failed and chaotic results ( the results of thousands, millions or maybe more attempts).The end result looks ordered to us only because we try to compare it using mathematical or physics formulas. Our human being needs this type of "order" to be able to understand the surroundings where we live and stay.
If I or you were to be born in a small village in Africa, where i know only to hunt using spears or arrows and sleep in a tent.Then my "order of life" would have been my spear and my arrow.


To compare the start of forming the "life cell" as the start when the Earth planet was born is also not so correct.
Is not ok to say even with the start of our solar system.
This is because our galaxy is always moving and it has high chances to interact with other galaxies and to bring debris into our solar system from galaxies or other Milky-way solar systems that where born millions or more years long before our solar system.
If i had to estimate the chances of forming a single "life cell" is something similar with "Rutherford's experiment" .
In the experiment, Rutherford proved the existence of nucleus in atoms.
To be able to do this he blasted gold foils with billions of particles, and a alpha particle had one chance in a hundred million of hitting the nucleus.

If you have a very small chance to form a "life cell", then the process can not be ordered.And i think this is true with every process that transforms or creates something new, very small chances = high disorder.

Hi Adughep, and welcome to the forum.

.As we see now water looks like a good structure to form life cells.
Though in the universe might be elements more stronger and better then water in forming life — Adughep

Yes maybe, I have heard some speculation that the atmosphere of Venus might contain life.

But the process of forming the "life cell" was not ordered at all. In my opinion the process was made using a lot of failed and chaotic results ( the results of thousands, millions or maybe more attempts) — Adughep

Yes again, some of the essential amino acids were apparently formed under high pressure and temperature. What I was getting at is that the complex multilayered structure of life - atoms forming molecules, and molecules forming proteins, proteins forming cells, etc requires an ordered state. Such constructions cannot form in chaotic environments, because of their delicacy and complexity. So the first thing necessary for life is order and stability ( long period of order ). In a sense what life evolves out of is this order.

To compare the start of forming the "life cell" as the start when the Earth planet was born is also not so correct — Adughep

If i had to estimate the chances of forming a single "life cell" is something similar with "Rutherford's experiment" — Adughep

I think its just a matter of time before we find life elsewhere. Obviously it requires just the right conditions, but there are so many opportunities in the universe. Perhaps even on Mars we may find some remnants, who knows?

If you have a very small chance to form a "life cell", then the process can not be ordered.And i think this is true with every process that transforms or creates something new, very small chances = high disorder. — Adughep

That is the thing, we don't know what the odds are. Even of the 8 planets of the solar system there are three known locations of liquid water; Earth, underground lakes on mars, and under ice lakes on Europa ( moon of Jupiter). If only we could drill in those locations. We just have to wait and see.

Yes again, some of the essential amino acids were apparently formed under high pressure and temperature. What I was getting at is that the complex multilayered structure of life - atoms forming molecules, and molecules forming proteins, proteins forming cells, etc requires an ordered state. Such constructions cannot form in chaotic environments, because of their delicacy and complexity. So the first thing necessary for life is order and stability ( long period of order ). In a sense what life evolves out of is this order. — Pop

Yes you are correct about the end result, as i said in my previous reply the end result have a good order state and balance.
But the long process and time that was required to reach this "order state", that you see now in a "living cell" was chaotic.
If it was "a long period of order" as you said, then most likely our evolution will progress much much faster.

Dont you think that every process that requires a lot of time to finish(millions years) or has a small chance to even exist is because of the chaos and disorder around it ?
I kind of fail to see how "a long period of order" evolution progress is slow, unless it had a heck a lot of chaotic and disorder events.

If it was "a long period of order" as you said, then most likely our evolution will progress much much faster. — Adughep

Dont you think that every process that requires a lot of time to finish(millions years) or has a small chance to even exist is because of the chaos and disorder around it ? — Adughep

The opposite could also be argued - That life existed so long is because of the order / stability of the environment.
I guess it depends on how much disorder we are talking about. The Dinosaurs obviously encountered too much, but other organisms were able to cope.

The opposite could also be argued - That life existed so long is because of the order / stability of the environment.
I guess it depends on how much disorder we are talking about. The Dinosaurs obviously encountered too much, but other organisms were able to cope. — Pop

Well yes you can argue and say the opposite, that because of a stable environment the life emerged to what you see today.
But from what we know about our solar system formation process or the geological history of the Earth.
It does not look like early Earth was a stable environment for life formation or that our solar system provided such a good order and stable conditions to create a "living cell".

I' m inclined to think that "the order" and the "life cells" you see today are a process of evolution, (the end result ) and are not something that emerge on Earth because we had from start a "friendly", ordered and stable planet.